This article endeavours to argue from a linguistic point of view for the ‘independence’ of Khelobedu, to be recognised as an additional official language in the Republic of South Africa. The speakers of Khelobedu speak neither Sepedi or Tshivenḓa as some linguists claim. From the wide range of literature on this phenomenon, some Sepedi and Tshivenḓa linguists claim that this language (Khelobedu) is their dialect. This indecisiveness leaves Khelobedu speakers in limbo. As a result, Balobedu learners end up performing poorly academically because they learn the Sepedi language as their second language instead. The purpose of this article is to argue on linguistic grounds against such a classification by the earlier linguists and missionaries as the findings succinctly provide evidence in support of this position. In attempting to dispute this classification, the content analysis method was employed for data gathering purposes. A comparative lexicostatistic approach was used to undergird the study. In terms of data, Khelobedu, Tshivenḓa and Sepedi lexical items were collected and compared to corroborate the claim. Nevertheless, Khelobedu strongly shows its ‘independence’ as do Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana and isiZulu, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and Siswati. Furthermore, Khelobedu and Sepedi differ greatly in terms of their pronunciation. The issue around mutual intelligibility, we argue, should not be put into this equation. The article recommends that Khelobedu be regarded as an official language that Balobedu learners and students could use as a medium of teaching and learning; furthermore, Balobedu’s identity should also not be compromised.
The significance and contribution of this article to scientific knowledge resides in its contention that the classification of Khelobedu as one of the dialects of the Sepedi or Northern Sotho language lacks linguistic justification. The article further argues that this misclassification was due to the partnership that existed between the missionaries and the colonial government in consultation with their informants who only recognised varieties where the missionaries settled and operated. Therefore, it is postulated that Khelobedu should be considered a fully fledged language since it shows its own linguistic repertoire.
In this article, both names, Sepedi and Northern Sotho/Sesotho sa Leboa, have been used interchangeably when referring to one official standard language. In addition, the Sepedi language name is also used when referring to a dialect, when it comes to its classification as part of the Sepedi language group, that is one of many dialects. The purpose of this explanation is to help the reader deal with the confusion that they may experience because of the synonymous use of both names, Sepedi and Northern Sotho/Sesotho sa Leboa, when referring to the official language. As authors, we are fully aware that ‘Sepedi’ replaced ‘Northern Sotho/Sesotho sa Leboa’ as the official name for the language according to the Section 6(1) of the Constitution of South Africa, Act No. 108 of 1996 (Rakgogo & Van Huyssteen
The object of this article is to explore the possibilities of Khelobedu becoming one of the official languages in the Republic of South Africa, based on linguistic grounds and, to some extent, its cultural background. This critical matter cannot be viewed exclusively as a language issue. Language and culture are intertwined; a language is a medium through which a culture is transmitted. From an ethnopragmatic point of view, a language reflects people’s worldviews and their thoughts about life in general (Cliff & Wierzbicka
At a general level, lexical items may be perceived as a single word or as part of a word that forms the basic elements of a language’s lexicon or vocabulary. According to Richards and Schmidt (
The original sub-tribes of the Lobedu, apart from the royal Bakwebo group, were Baroka or Balaudi (different groups of north-eastern Sotho), Bathobolo, Balepa and Bakona or Vhangoṋa. Vhangoṋa is the Venḓa aborigine, and those who came with or were found by the royal group of Balobedu in the area were conquered and successfully incorporated into the kingdom, which is why they are not singled out. Over the years, this group has been completely assimilated into Balobedu. Vatsonga flooded into Bolobedu very late, and they were looked down upon by many of the ‘original sub-tribes’ of Balobedu, which is why they were singled out. Thus, the Vhavenḓa people who retain their language and inhabit the Bolobedu area, are from recent migration, and they are very few, which is why it would seem there are only a few Tshivenḓa-speaking people among Bolobedu. Parsons (
Oral evidence shows that the Lobedu were originally a Venḓa group which has since been heavily influenced by Pedi language and culture. The same may apply to Phalaborwa people whose traditional pottery is like that of Lobedu. (p. 40)
Similar to this, Mohale (
When expounding the historical background of the Balobedu tribe, Mohale (
Khelobedu is frequently referred to by its various names that are written differently, such as Khelobedu, Khelovhedu, Khelovedu, Khelozwi, Selodzwi or Selobedu (Rakgogo & Mandende
The khe- prefix is typically used by speakers of this language, as in the expressions
The authors (2022) hold the linguistic view that, so far, sociolinguists have not yet succeeded in providing a clear distinction between a dialect and a language. Makoni (
Fasold and Connor-Linton (
According to Mesthrie (
Similarly, Webb (
It is against this background that Rakgogo and Zungu (
Within the parameters of this article, we submit that the classification of Khelobedu as one of the dialects of the Sepedi language needs to be linguistically interrogated. The current article will determine if such classification accommodated linguistic or administrative reasons. Our argument will be validated by the lexical items that will be randomly collected and analysed in this article.
It is significant to be cognisant that Khelobedu has never been formally codified. According to Mojela (
In addition to creating orthographic systems based on the Roman alphabet’s 26 letters and adding diacritical marks, the missionaries also translated the Bible into these languages, created dictionaries, formulated grammar rules and built schools where these languages were taught (Webb
Equally important, the orthography of the current standard Tshivenḓa is influenced by Sepedi, as the missionaries that came to Venḓa around 1872 were accompanied by Sepedi speakers as their interpreters, which resulted in Tshivenḓa borrowing a lot of the linguistic forms from Sepedi as far as orthography is concerned (Mafela
Scholars such as Kretzer (
The objective of the article is to explore the lexical similarities between Khelobedu, Tshivenḓa and Sepedi and further argue against the current classification of Khelobedu as a dialect of the Sepedi language.
According to Van Niekerk (
Kotzé (
When confirming the lexical relationship between Khelobedu and Tshivenḓa, Maylam (
It is certainly true that the Lemba have displayed distinctive cultural and physical characteristics that seem to set them apart and the Venḓa had strong historical links with the Shona of Zimbabwe. However, elements of [
This is further buttressed by Doke’s (
But oral evidence shows that the Lobedu were originally a Venḓa group which has since been heavily influenced by Pedi languages and culture. The same may apply to Phalaborwa people whose traditional pottery is similar to that of Lobedu. (p. 40)
In agreement with Parsons (
Regarding the linguistic disparity between the Khelobedu dialect with the standard Sepedi language, Monareng, in a Parliamentary Joint Constitutional Review Committee (
Kretzer (
According to Webb (
The Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities Commission reported that it had previously submitted to the Constitutional Review Committee as an intervention strategy to resolve the challenge faced by the Balobedu community and was still awaiting a response from the Committee, according to a Parliamentary Joint Constitutional Review Committee (
Boshego (
Balobedu (Khelobedu speakers) suggested that their language, Khelobedu, should not only be given due consideration but be included as an official South African language. They also suggested that it should be used as a medium of instruction in their schools. He further records that when the then President of the then Republic of South Africa, Dr. Nelson Mandela, visited Her Majesty Queen Modjadji V at Kheṱhakoni (the Balobedu Palace) on 23 February 1999, she requested him to consider the recognition of Khelobedu as 12th official language. The
The Queen told Mandela that her language, Khelobedu, was not officially recognised and her people were forced to be taught Sepedi, and in Sepedi, which is not their native language.
In terms of this article, the researchers find the work by Kotzé (
In an article like the current one, one may notice that the suggestion by the Balobedu community and their Queen of having Khelobedu as an official language gains justification when one considers the linguistic differences with the standard Sepedi language. It is, thus, germane to state that if there were no great lexical dissimilarities, they would not be complaining and requesting their dialect to be elevated to the status of an official language. A concomitant issue in this study is that there are great lexical dissimilarities between the Khelobedu dialect and the standard Sepedi language. Therefore, comparative lexicostatistics as a conceptual framework adopted in this article will establish if there is considerable evidence from the lexical similarities between Khelobedu and Tshivenḓa.
This article is qualitative in nature and employs content analysis as a qualitative approach and utilises an ethnographic design. During the process of data collection, lexical items that show the interrelatedness or differences between the languages under attention, that is Khelobedu, Tshivenḓa and Sepedi, were randomly collected from different content in these languages and later compared. In addition, active participant observation was also employed in order to supplement the above-mentioned context. This method allowed the researchers to interact with the first language speakers of these languages (Khelobedu, Tshivenḓa and Sepedi) at different social gatherings such as funerals, weddings and community gatherings, interchanging with each other, and collected the data that were relevant to the objectives of the article. The reason for this approach was that the researchers wanted to collect authentic data from the natural environments. No interviews were conducted. The researchers’ view is that the chosen methods clearly articulate the problem statement that is being investigated and further determine the ontological argument that led to the epistemological and phenomenography stances.
For the purpose of this article, purposeful sampling as a technique was employed to select lexical similarity, and pronunciation closeness was used as a criterion to select lexicons that have been collected and analysed in this article. In this quest, four place names, nine surnames and 34 lexical items that show linguistic affinity were collected and analysed qualitatively.
Descriptive and interpretative research paradigms were mainly used for data analysis. The two methods helped the researchers to make sense of the collected data and also contributed to the rigour of the analysis of a considerable number of lexical items gathered from qualitative sources – primary and secondary (Saldana
Lexical similarities between Khelobedu, Tshivenḓa and Sepedi are explored and juxtaposed with regard to proper names and surnames as indicated in the tables. These data were randomly collected from qualitative sources by the researchers who are Sepedi and Tshivenḓa linguists, respectively, thus it was easy for them to collect lexical items that are relevant for this article. Of equal importance, one researcher is also a Molobedu, who studied Sepedi up to a postgraduate level. As earlier mentioned in the literature that was consulted in this article, it needs to be reiterated that the Sepedi orthography was used to guide the authors to categorise Khelobedu nouns into classes as they did. The reason for using Sepedi classes to categorise the Khelobedu nouns is motivated by the linguistic justification that the missionaries who were involved in the codification of the Sepedi and Tshivenḓa languages are the same and used a similar approach. Thus, it can be implied that had the missionaries considered to codify Khelobedu, the same orthography was going to be used as this language (Khelobedu) appears to be in-between Sepedi and Tshivenḓa.
In
Spelling variation of the word ‘Botlokwa’.
Khelobedu | Setlokwa | Tshivenḓa | Sepedi |
---|---|---|---|
Boḓogwa | Bodogwa | Vhuḓogwa | Botlokwa |
The literature reviewed in this article reveal that scholars such as Mönnig (
Surnames and kinship terms.
Khelobedu | Tshivenḓa | English translations |
---|---|---|
Selowa | Tshilowa | None |
Ramabulana | Ramabulana | None |
Mafoho | Mafoho | None |
Mokhola | Mukhola | None |
Rabohale | Ravhuhale | None |
Ramakalela | Ramagalela | None |
Lebepe | Luvhimbi | None |
Muofe | Muofhe | None |
Masiya | Masia | None |
Rakhadi | Makhadzi | Aunt |
Malume | Malume | Uncle |
Morathu | Murathu | Younger brother |
Khaetjadi | Khaladzi | Sister |
Moduhulu | Muduhulu | Niece |
Mozwala | Muzwala | Cousin |
Mmane | Mmane | Aunt |
Another critical and interesting argument that comes to the fore is that the above-mentioned surnames and kinship terms do not exist in the Sepedi language but do exist in the Khelobedu and Tshivenda languages. It is against this backdrop that
Place names.
Khelobedu | Tshivenḓa |
---|---|
Tlatsa | Dazha |
Maolwe | Dzimauli |
Khikhutini | Tshikhudini |
In this article, the authors put forward that the non-existence of these names in the Sepedi language brings in another crucial question that should be taken into consideration. The question is why should there be a lexical similarity between place names that are found in Venḓa and Bolobedu, whereas Khelobedu is regarded as one of the dialects of the Sepedi language? An answer to this question may provide some light on the injustice that was done to some of the South African indigenous languages that were politically and administratively classified as dialects.
Names of animals.
Khelobedu | Tshivenḓa | Sepedi | Gloss |
---|---|---|---|
Snake | |||
Head of cattle | |||
Fish | |||
Fowl | |||
Sheep | |||
Donkey | |||
Tortoise | |||
Frog | |||
Pangolin | |||
Cat | |||
Bat |
In this article, the researchers’ contention is that Khelobedu as a dialect shows more lexical similarities with the Tshivenḓa language than the standard Sepedi where it is classified as one of the dialects.
From
Phonemic representation of some Khelobedu, Tshivenḓa and Sepedi lexical items.
Khelobedu | Tshivenḓa | Sepedi | English |
---|---|---|---|
Knife | |||
Eyes | |||
Present | |||
Talk | |||
Numbers | |||
Car | |||
Porridge | |||
Power | |||
Night | |||
Full | |||
Wake up | |||
House | |||
Hunger | |||
Poverty | |||
Ball | |||
Eggs | |||
Swim | |||
Give birth | |||
Small | |||
Onion | |||
Gentleman | |||
Sunset |
From
It is evident that the main lexical similarities are derived from the underlying sound systems of both Khelobedu and Tshivenḓa. Critics may also argue that the pronunciation of the above-provided lexical items shows a great influence of the Tshivenḓa language on the Khelobedu dialect. Thus, all the collected lexical items from
The findings of this article reveal that some of the sounds in the sound system of Khelobedu are not found in the standard Sepedi language but instead in the standard Tshivenḓa language. The literature reviewed for this article and the data analyses support the notable lexical similarities that exist between Khelobedu and the Tshivenḓa language (see Kretzer
Rakgogo and Mandende (
The minutes of the Parliamentary Joint Constitutional Review Committee (
Another critical argument that comes to the fore is that if culture is part of language, which culture does the Balobedu practise that makes them socially identical to Sepedi speakers? Balobedu are being denied their participation in the national discourse because if they have to do so, they have to express themselves in a language that is not theirs; they are further being excluded from using their language for self-development and denied opportunities to participate economically in their mother tongue. Information is power, because Balobedu are denied their language in learning and teaching, they do not receive information in the same way as Vhavenḓa, Bapedi and Vatsonga in the province. This makes them politically and economically discriminated against.
Considering the lexical items that have been collected and analysed in this article, the findings further reveal that the Khelobedu dialect is phonologically similar to the Tshivenḓa language, and it is different from the other Sotho languages, that is Sesotho and Setswana. Then, one fails to understand why Khelobedu was included as a dialect under Sepedi and not under Tshivenḓa. Was this done because of geographical proximity between speakers of Khelobedu and Sepedi? If so, Khelobedu, geographically and historically speaking, is much closer to Tshivenḓa. Linguistically speaking, as proved by the data, Khelobedu is closer to Tshivenḓa. Because of this finding, Khelobedu seems to be a dialect with many legs, as a result of its location.
The reason for this confusion and classification could be the fact that both Sepedi and Tshivenḓa adopted the German orthographic system. The missionaries who came to Venḓa in 1872 came with Sepedi speakers as their interpreters and this resulted in Tshivenḓa borrowing much from Sepedi as far as orthography is concerned (Mafela
Another critical point that comes to the fore, particularly, when looking closely at the linguistic aspect, is that Khelobedu and Tshivenḓa are mutually more intelligible than Khelobedu and any of the other dialects of Sepedi (see Mulaudzi [
On the issue of pronunciation, the findings revealed that the standard Sepedi language does not use the sound system used in the Khelobedu dialect, while the standard Tshivenḓa language does. A typical phonemic example is the difference between the pronunciations of /kh/ [kh]:
In this article, the findings reveal that the Khelobedu dialect seems to be lexically and grammatically more similar to Tshivenḓa, than to Sepedi, where it is considered as belonging to one of its dialects. Linguistically, it is, thus, relevant to submit that the degree of mutual intelligibility between Khelobedu and the standard Sepedi language is less than the linguistic relationship between Khelobedu and Tshivenḓa. It can be confirmed from a lexicostatistical point of view that the data provided and analysed revealed that there is evidence to support the claim that there are more noticeable lexical similarities between Khelobedu and Tshivenḓa than what appears between Khelobedu and Sepedi. If mutual intelligibility is a factor, why are Sepedi, Sesotho and Setswana and isiZulu, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and Siswati not merged? Why is the mutual intelligibility factor used discriminately in the classification of South African indigenous languages?
The literature consulted in this study confirms that language planning in the South African context has always been politicised and decisions that were taken on the status of South African indigenous languages only accommodated the administrative system and demarcations created by the Apartheid regime as a concomitant part of colonialism, not necessarily the linguistic reasons. Had the system taken into consideration the linguistic background and justifications, Khelobedu would have been classified as a language in its own right.
In conclusion, the objective of this article was to look at the lexical similarities between Khelobedu, Tshivenḓa and Sepedi in the Limpopo province, South Africa. The findings suggest that Khelobedu should be regarded as an official language despite its similarities with Tshivenḓa and Sepedi. The issue about intelligibility cannot be used as a criterion because of its flaws, locally and internationally. The classification of South African indigenous languages was never based on intelligibility when it comes to according them official status. This argument has been succinctly corroborated in the discussion above. Linguistically, these languages have some differences. The findings may shed some light on the ongoing debate about whether Khelobedu should be a language accorded an official status. Speakers, learners and students of this language (Khelobedu) seem to be displaced linguistically. This article provided a plethora of evidence to this end, supporting the argument that Khelobedu should be regarded as an official language to give its speakers the power to participate freely in the economy and politics of the country. A language gives one power and ability to express one’s feelings and thoughts through it; this should be the reality for the Balobedu learners of South Africa. Balobedu people are being deprived of their linguistic rights, rights that they were supposed to be enjoying in the new and democratic South Africa.
The authors argue that there is a need for sociolinguists, dialectologists and language authorities such as PanSALB and its sub-structures, namely National Language Bodies, National Lexicography Units and Provincial Language Committees, to understand the impact of the partnership that existed between the missionaries and the colonial government on the status of South African indigenous languages that were misclassified as dialects without linguistic justification. In the literature that was consulted for this article, Makoni (
The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude and appreciation to all the scholars who contributed in terms of the literature review.
The author(s) declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
The content of this article has been contributed equally by both authors, T.J.R. and I.P.M. They both drafted the article and revised it before finalisation.
This article is based on a study that received written approval from the Tshwane University of Technology Research Ethics Committee and the reference number is Ref #: REC/2015/03/007. The authors randomly collected lexical items that show many similarities between the Khelobedu dialect and Tshivenḓa language. In addition, it is worth mentioning that the researchers are also lecturers who are teaching Sepedi and Tshivenḓa as first language modules at a university level. Thus, this enabled them to easily collect different lexical items that were compared using comparative lexicostatistics as a theoretical framework. Copies of the approval letters can be obtained from one of the authors.
The authors wish to thank the University Development Capacity Grant (TUT), funded by the Department of Higher Education (DHET) for financial support and stability. Of equal importance, the financial assistance from the National Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences (NIHSS), in collaboration with the South African Humanities Deans Association (SAHUDA), is hereby acknowledged.
The data that support the findings of this study are available in the Tshwane University of Technology Open Repository (TUTDoR) at:
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.